The Obama administration’s proposal this week to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30% by 2030 was portrayed as a bold move by the White House. But by political standards, it doesn’t look like it will have strong negative consequences for the president or his party.

The announcement most directly hurts the coal industry – a commodity that’s simply not produced in Democratic territory.

There were about 1 billion tons of coal produced in the U.S. in 2012 (the latest figures available) and about half of that was produced in just two states: West Virginia and Wyoming. Those two states last voted for a Democrat for president in 1996 and 1964 respectively.

Other big coal producers include the red states of Kentucky and Texas along with the lighter-red Indiana.

Of course, not all of coal country is red on the electoral map. Look on that chart and you’ll notice a Pennsylvania, a battleground state that usually votes Democratic, and Illinois, a reliable part of the Democrats path to 270. What about those states?

This is where the all-too-common red state/blue state political trope falls down. Pennsylvania may usually be blue in presidential years, but there’s a lot red in that blue state. There are more people and votes in the state’s blue parts, however, and those places aren’t tied to coal.

Pennsylvania has 28 counties that produced coal in 2012, and Republican Mitt Romney won 24 of them. In fact Mr. Romney won coal-producing Pennsylvania by about 100,000 votes. But he lost the state overall to President Barack Obama by about 300,000 votes.

The same pattern repeats itself in other coal-producing states with blue hues. In Illinois, Mr. Romney won coal counties by about 34,000 votes, but he lost the state by 900,000. In Colorado, Mr. Romney won the coal counties by about 12,000 votes and lost the state by about 150,000 votes.

And when you look at the difference in the number of votes coming from largely rural coal-producing counties and the rest of the state, you understand how little the Democrats rely on these places.

Coal mines pepper Pennsylvania, but far more voters live in counties that don’t produce coal. And it’s important to note that the presence of a mining operation doesn’t mean most county residents have direct ties to it. Furthermore, Mr. Obama’s already-weak support in those counties indicates that the carbon proposal can’t deliver a big blow to the president or Democrats.

The carbon reduction targets could play a role Senate races in West Virginia, Montana and — maybe most critically — in Kentucky, another big coal producer.

In the Bluegrass State, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is engaged in what’s thought to be a close race against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes. If the race is close, the White House announcement could hurt Ms. Grimes. But it would have to be pretty close.

Looking back at Kentucky’s 2010 Senate race, RepublicanRand Pauldefeated Democrat Jack Conway by about 12 percentage points in the state overall and by about 15 points in coal-producing counties.

None of this is to say that the administration’s 30% reduction target won’t have political consequences. If the numbers in some of these rural locales move enough, it could possibly play a role in states such as Kentucky in this fall and Pennsylvania in 2016.

What’s more, rising utility bills are something no one likes, regardless of where one lives. If there is a spike in the electric bills, city dwellers and suburbanites may suddenly find they care a great deal about life in coal country.

But 2030, the deadline for these cuts, is a long way off and any increases are likely to be smaller and/or over a longer term. For now, Mr. Obama’s bold move on carbon emissions looks like a pretty safe move politically for himself and the Democrats.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.